Objectives: The aim of this study was to test whether or not customized zirconia abutments exhibit the same survival rates in canine and posterior regions as titanium abutments, and to compare the esthetic result of the two abutment types.Material and methods: Twenty-two patients with 40 implants in posterior regions were included and the implant sites were randomly assigned to 20 customized zirconia and 20 customized titanium abutments. All-ceramic (AC) and metal-ceramic (MC) crowns were fabricated. In all except two cases, the crowns were cemented on the abutments using resin or glass-ionomer cements. Two zirconia reconstructions were screw retained. At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the reconstructions were examined for technical and biological problems. Probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque (Pl) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed and compared with natural control teeth. Furthermore, the difference of color (ΔE) of the peri-implant mucosa and the gingiva of control teeth was evaluated by means of a spectrophotometer (Spectroshade). The data were analyzed with Student's unpaired t-test, ANOVA and regression analyses.Results: Twenty patients with 19 zirconia and 12 titanium abutments were examined at a mean follow-up of 12.6±2.7 months. The survival rate for reconstructions and abutments was 100%. No technical or biological problems were found at the test and control sites. Two chippings (16.7%) occurred at crowns supported by titanium abutments. No difference was found regarding PPD (meanPPDZrO2 3.4±0.7 mm, mPPDTi 3.3±0.6 mm), Pl (mPlZrO2 0.2±0.3, mPlTi 0.1±1.8) and BOP (mBOPZrO2 60±30%, mBOPTi 30±40%) between the two groups. Both crowns on zirconia and titanium abutments induced a similar amount of discoloration of the soft tissue compared with the gingiva at natural teeth (ΔEZrO2 8.1±3.9, ΔETi 7.8±4.3).Conclusions: At 1 year, zirconia abutments exhibited the same survival and a similar esthetic outcome as titanium abutments. ABSTRACTObjectives: The aim of this study was to test whether or not customized zirconia abutments exhibit the same survival rates in canine and posterior regions as titanium abutments, and to compare the esthetic result of the two abutment types. Material and Methods:Twentytwo patients with 40 implants in posterior regions were included and the implant sites were randomly assigned to 20 customized zirconia and 20 customized titanium abutments. All-ceramic (AC) and metal-ceramic crowns (MC) were fabricated. In all except two cases the crowns were cemented on the abutments using resin or glass-ionomer cements. Two zirconia reconstructions were screw-retained. At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the reconstructions were examined for technical and biological problems. Probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque (Pl) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed and compared to natural control teeth. Furthermore, the difference of color (∆E) of the peri-implant mucosa and the gingiva of control teeth was evaluated by means of a spectrophotometer (Spectroshade). The data were analyzed with Student'...

It is concluded that for those implants where primary stability was achieved, the immediate implant placement performed at extraction sockets exhibiting periapical pathology did not lead to an increased rate of complications and rendered an equally favorable type of tissue integration of the implants in both groups. Implant placement into such sites can, therefore, be successfully performed.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test whether or not implants associated with bone regeneration show the same survival and success rates as implants placed in native bone in patients requiring both forms of therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients (median age of 60.3 years, range 18-77.7 years) had been treated 5 years before the follow-up examination. Machined screw-type implants were inserted following one of two surgical procedures: (1) simultaneously with a guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure, which involved grafting with xenogenic bone substitute material, autogenous bone or a mixture of the two and defect covering with a bio-absorbable collagen membrane (test) and (2) standard implantation procedure without bone regeneration (control). For data recording, one test and one control implant from each patient were assessed. Examination included measurements of plaque control record (PCR), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), width of keratinized mucosa (KM), frequency of situations with supra-mucosal location of the crown margin, implant survival assessment and radiographic examination. Radiographs were digitized to assess the marginal bone level (MBL). Differences between groups were tested using the one-sample t-test. The estimation of survival rate was based on Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: The follow-up period of the 34 GBR and 34 control implants ranged from 49 to 70 months (median time 57 months). Cumulative survival rates reached 100% for the GBR group and 94.1% for the control group without statistical significance. No statistically significant differences for clinical and radiographic parameters were found between the two groups regarding PCR, BOP, PPD, KM and MBL. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that, clinically, implants placed with concomitant bone regeneration did not performed differently from implants placed into native bone with respect to implant survival, marginal bone height and periimplant soft tissue parameters. simultaneously with a GBR procedure, which involved grafting with xenogenic bone substitute material, autogenous bone or a mixture of the two and defect covering with a bio-absorbable collagen membrane (test); 2. standard implantation procedure without bone regeneration (control). For data recording one test and one control implant from each patient were assessed. Examination included measurements of plaque control record (PCR), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), width of keratinized mucosa (KM), frequency of situations with supra-mucosal location of the crown margin, implant survival assessement and radiographic examination.Radiographs were digitized to assess the marginal bone level (MBL). Differences between groups were tested using the one sample t test. The estimation of survival rate was based on Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results:The follow-up period of the 34 GBR and 34 control implants ranged from 49 to 70 months (median time 57.0 months). Cumulative survival rates reached 100% for the GBR group and 94...

Abstract:Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of immediately placed implants in sockets with or without periapical pathology 3 years after implant placement. Materials and methods:29 patients with immediate implant placement were clinically and radiologically followed 3 years after implant placement (test-group: 16 patients without periapical pathology, control-group: 13 patients with periapical pathologies). Clinical (FMBS, FMPS, CAL, width of keratinized mucosa buccaly of the implant) and radiological parameters (IS-BIC) were assessed. Both 95% confidence intervals, as well as results of statistical tests (one-sample, two-sample, paired t-test) were provided. Results:The implant survival rate was 100% for all 29 implants after 3 years. The clinical and radiological parameters showed no statistically significant difference between the testand the control-group at 3 years (two-sample t-test). The vertical distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant contact (IS-BIC) was between 1.54±0.88 mm (mesial, test) and 1.69±0.92 mm (distal, test). Between the 1-and 3-year visit the IS-BIC increased in both groups significantly on one side of the implant: 0.30±0.37 mm (mesial, test) and 0.33±0.43 mm (distal, control) (one-sample t-test). None of the 13 examined radiographs of implants immediately placed in sockets with periapical pathologies revealed retrograde periimplantitis after 3 years. Conclusion:It is concluded within the limitations of this study, that after careful debridement of the extraction socket, immediate placement of implants into sites with periapical pathologies can be a successful treatment modality for at least 3 years with no disadvantages in clinical and radiological parameters to immediately placed implants into healthy sockets.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical, aesthetic and radiological outcome of immediately placed implants in sockets with or without periapical pathology 5 years after placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients were followed 5 years after immediate implant placement (test-group: 12 patients with periapical pathologies; control-group: 15 patients without periapical pathology). Clinical (FMBS, FMPS, CAL, keratinized mucosa), aesthetical (length of clinical crown, Papilla index), and radiological (vertical distance implant shoulder to first bone to implant contact (IS-BIC)) parameters were assessed. Both 95% confidence intervals, as well as results of statistical tests (one-sample, two-sample, paired t-test) were provided. RESULTS: After 5 years the implant survival rate was 100% for all 27 implants. In the test group the width of the keratinized mucosa increased significantly over the observation period (0.8 ± 1.0 mm). Concerning aesthetic parameters at the 3-month as well as at the 5-year examination no statistically significant difference could be found between the two groups. In the control-group the papilla mesial and distal to the implant increased statistically significant during the observation period by 0.5 ± 0.5 and 0.4 ± 0.6 index score points, respectively. The position of the gingival margin at the implant site and the two neighboring teeth remained stable. At the 5-year visit IS-BIC measured between 1.4 ± 0.5 mm (mesial, control) and 1.7 ± 0.7 mm (distal, test), no significant difference could be found between the two groups. Over the observation period no statistically significant change of IS-BIC could be found in the test-as well as in the control-group. None of the examined radiographs revealed any signs of retrograde peri-implantitis. CONCLUSION: The replacement of teeth exhibiting periapical pathologies by implants placed immediately after tooth extraction can be a successful treatment modality with no disadvantages in clinical, aesthetical and radiological parameters to immediately placed implants into healthy sockets.